As far as elections go, 2016 will go down as one for the history books. Whether Trump somehow pulls ahead and sends our country back several decades or the more likely win of another Clinton, the public has faced the two most unpopular candidates to ever run. The real issue that this election has showed us, aside the severe corruption of the two candidates, is the lack of any real progressives speaking out for the public at large.We don't have a moderate candidate. Depending how deep one wants to look at the current candidates, Hillary Clinton, who is considered the left/moderate candidate, has policies that are to the right of George W. Bush. The more we continue forward with this idea of the 'lesser of two evils' the more radical and dangerous the two candidates will continue to be.Since the 90's the democratic party made it's full transformation away from progressive politics and began its shift toward neoliberal politics. As Bill Clinton ran his campaign in the hopes of attracting Southern Dixiecrat's, he compromised the Democrats usual role of being the party of labor. Many progressives will even remark that Nixon was our last liberal president, which is a statement filled with concern for anyone hoping for more progressive policies from our current democrats.Many will commend the Sanders campaign for inspiring for the public to participate in politics. The movement invited young people to get involved and lead movements that can begin the groundwork for more progressive leaders and politicians of tomorrow. Yet, with the leaks on the DNC collusion of trying to block Sanders from the nomination, as well as the lack of media coverage he received, and his eventual compromise of vetting Clinton as the official democratic nominee, we see the movement that he carried fracture as the public has divided between the “I'm with her” lesser evil group and the “Bernie or bust” movement.People suggest Sanders did the right thing stepping down and backing Clinton, believing Clinton is going to pursue their “most progressive” platform in the DNC's history. This ignoring the fact that many Clinton supporters and pundits ridiculed Sanders for wanting to pursue “fairy tale” policies for making economy more equal for the majority, policies that were not far off from what was implemented and pursued by more labor friendly presidents like FDR and defended by Republican presidents like Truman. Many progressives have either forgotten or have become too cynical in believing real change possible, as they settle for the 'lesser evil,' yet again.It is when people believe that a corrupt candidate who's is unfavorable to labor – who is packing her administration with wall street friendly, pro-fracking, pro-TPP members – will change the system and tackle the “real” issues, that we begin this descent into a false reality of politics for change.Clinton is better than Trump, but Trump is a reaction to the direction both parities have shifted our politics. While the Republicans are witnessing their own fracturing because of the mess of a candidate Trump is, it was Clinton's campaign that helped the media take “joke” candidates like Trump and Ben Carson seriously in order to help assure a more eased victory for her.Usually respectable and more independent publications and organizations like Center for American Progress (founded by John Podesta, Clinton's campaign manager), MotherJones, and Vox have had writers cheerleading Clinton even before she was the declared the nominee, have said little on the release of wikileaks emails, the DNC corruption, and downplay the concern over ethical issues with the Clinton Foundation, suggesting those who focus on those issues are repeating right-wing conspiracy. This is not to mention the mainstream media free air to Trump, and CNN's Donna Brazile who fed questions to Hillary before a primary debate.Vox continues to refer to the email scandal as “bullshit” ignoring the serious implications that having an open server where classified information could have been easily hacked. They gloss over the fact that she deleted emails (which many progressive outlets are quick to say Bush did it too, as though that somehow makes it better) and delayed handing them over to the FBI. Clinton's nonchalant attitude to the whole scandal is somewhat ironic considering her harsh condemnation towards whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, who was more responsible when he was handing over sensitive information to the journalist.Progressives have come out defending Clinton's use of campaign finance money, usually using same defensive argument that was used in the Supreme Court in decision of Citizens United. The ruling that opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign funding.Many progressives push aside these actual concerns commenting that, Trump is worse. But it's easy to ridicule the self ridiculing candidate. It's harder to try and have a serious conversation on the more controversial and disconcerting policies of Clinton. How can we imagine these same people who jump to her defense - no matter the questionable and legitimate concerns of some of her scandals - will come to our aid in pursuing the progressive agenda that Clinton and her financial backers have no interest in implementing?We're relying on the same rational as we did with the Obama presidency. And to this day he still has his defenders as being a great president. They ignore his expansion of the drone program, his continuation the Patriot Act. He's assassinated US citizens he deems a threat without providing evidence or a trial. He has imprisoned more whistleblowers using the Espionage Act, than any other president. His administration has deported more immigrants than last several presidents combined.Obama is tame compared to some of Hillary Clinton's foreign policies. Her progressive backers are quiet over the fact that Clinton wants to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, which require force ground troops and start a potential war with Russia. They avoid the mentioning that Clinton helped overthrow the democratic leader of Honduras or that she was against the Iran Nuclear deal, though she changed her language during the debates.We continue to see the compromises by progressives that would have never been allowed under a Bush presidency and will be fought with a Trump presidency. Instead of condemning these actions from Clinton and Obama, they ignore it, or worse defend the practice because Bush did it.This isn't what being progressive is about, let alone a party of the people. They're just playing the same game the republicans play in defending their own candidate, regardless of the contradictions to their beliefs. And it's these kind of compromises that allow these politicians to get away with shifting our country further away from a government for the people to a government for the wealthy elites.We need to start looking at our politicians with a more critical view, regardless of party, because if we don't, things will continue to get worse. As Chris Hedges statedon a DemocracyNow debate “Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile.”It is more important now than ever that we begin setting up alternatives for other parties and candidates to flourish. Bernie Sanders himself was an Independent and only switched to Democrat to be able to participate in the debates. The mere fact that many people are going to write-in his nameon ballots across the US reveals the potential he had at breaking through the two-party system and creating a real radical disruption in our political system by running on a third-party ticket.​These alternative candidates/parties needs the same momentum of the Sanders base, but they need to focus themselves outside of the Democratic compromise if they really wants to break out this four year cycle of the 'lesser evil.' The attention to third parties in this election has opened up more room for new alternatives than ever before. If we continue this interest beyond this election in local and state elections, this will provide opportunity for real change. We just need the same progressives, that have flocked to defend Hillary and Obama, to take a step back and ask themselves whose interest they're defending, their own, or the public at large?

Originally published at: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/13/the-meaning-of-political-protest/

Political protests are the foundation of what makes this country what it is and without the ability to protest and make ones voice heard, we continue down this dangerous path of conflating the true meaning of the word democracy while condemning its actual practice. People who only identify themselves as patriotic by standing up during the national anthem or saluting the American flag when it’s presented before them are falsely identifying what it means to be an American.

Patriotism can reveal itself in different ways and does not require the application of standing for a song that has racist historical roots, or standing for a flag of a country that was started under the contradictory promotion of freedom and slavery. Our country has a complicated history and to be a patriot in the most basic terms one is allowed to look at the country with questionable pride and demand that things can be better and you want that change for everyone. The idea of only connecting patriotism to the the military belittles the true flexibility and development of freedom and oversimplifies the identity of what makes America the country we all speak of.

For those who look to people like Kaepernick, with his political protest of sitting down for the national anthem – demanding action against the recent uproar of police brutality – as an insult to our military and soldiers who fought and died for our “freedoms” need to reflect on what that word means. And if you don’t see the irony of someone expressing their freedom on issues that concern them, but you don’t feel are important and you only recognize that action as disrespect to those in uniform, you should really reflect on what soldiers think about the situation.

More recently our military endeavors have become less about democracy and more about the subjugation and control of other states. Many can argue the true nature of our presences in the middle east or our growing proxy wars throughout Africa, or more than 750 military bases spread throughout the world. What does matter is that our country has not only progressed through the actions of our military alone, but also through the action of political protest.

Without considering the role that political protests have had in creating more safe work environments, environmental regulations, the health of the community, building a middle class, medical and financial care for the elderly, and the dismantling of child labor and slavery, they are ignoring the basic principles that were put in place through the constitution. And to belittle those actions and repress their significance is to insult our constitution, country, and the soldiers who fight in the name or defending those freedoms.

Those who see a flag more patriotic than political protest to the injustices in their country are subjecting themselves to a simplistic idea of what our military, soldiers, and our country represent. They are ignoring the long history of struggles that have been and continues to be fought for in order to make this country better. Their sense of pride and patriotic furor in the flag follows more in the footsteps of a nationalistic fascist regime than it does in standing up for the principles of freedom in democracy. They can use the words ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ to make it sound like those are part of their interest, but those words become meaningless when you attack someone’s freedom to stand, sit, and protest the injustices in their country.

Change and progress comes through action of the public protest. The labor movement forced itself into the conversation of the country during the late 19th and made huge gains for labor and helped create the middle class of the 20th century. The Civil War and the Reconstruction period, moments considered the second revolution in America, were moments protested by the abolitionist and blacks, to offer freedom and liberty to the newly freed slaves. The Civil Rights picked up the fight with the right to vote and continues that struggle for economic justice and a stop to police brutality with groups like Black Lives Matter. It was the political protest of the woman’s suffrage movement of the late 1800’s to the 1920’s that won women the right to vote and participate more freely in the democratic process.

Occupy Wall Street, the Climate protests, and the 15 Now Campaigns have all brought attention to serious issues. Their protests were political as people went into the streets blocking traffic, shopping, pipelines, and stood outside the white house, in order to bring the public’s attention. Income inequality is at a rate we haven’t seen since the 1920’s before the Great Depression. Aside from 97% of scientist in agreement that climate change is a real issue, and we can’t ignore every day of this year consistently broke records for being the hottest ever recorded. Average wages have stagnated since the 1970’s and are less than what they would have been accounting for inflation, this at the same time as we’re more productive than we were back then.

To speak out against these political protests is to besmirch the change that has occurred throughout this country, let alone to ignore the history of this country. And these issues carry concern in the public realm. Income inequality, climate change, and rebuilding the middle class were issues that were brought into the election with the surge voters pushing Sanders into the Democratic debate to speak publicly on theses issues.

It’s usually not without coincidence those who speak pridefully of our soldiers and military have little outrage or rarely do anything aside from a one-time social media post, about the 22 soldier suicides that occur daily, or the real concern of PTSD. They don’t condemn the torture report (that spoke of methods that our military used that broke international laws) or demand justice against those involved. Few, if any, ever protest the drone wars, which have helped recruit terrorist, or speak out against the high rate of sexual assault that takes place in the military.

In most of the political movements of the past, the military’s role has been one in defending the state. And while there is and should be constant support of the soldiers in our military, to speak against the actions of our military abroad is something Americans should feel free and comfortable to participate in. Without an open dialogue about our military adventures abroad, we only continue to perpetuate our emotional disconnection to war that most Americans feel. We will only continue to further disengage ourselves of the blunders that continue in our country’s name. This opens the door to more potential blowback, the continued militarization of our police, the continued over-surveillance of our society and the exploitation and abuse against our own soldiers

​A country that finds it disrespectful to the soldiers in uniform when an individual decides to sit down during the national anthem for a political protest needs to take a step back and look at what role they want the military to play. Do they want the military to be a representation of the freedoms and liberty they presume to espouse and allow those same freedoms to be exercised by the citizens who demand better treatment for their community? Or do they want the military to tell people what they can and can’t do? Because the latter reveals a deeper issue of not just what kind of role for military they want, but also what our country means when we speak of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and for whom.

In his most recent STOU address, Obama commented that “Food Stamp recipients did not cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did.”1 Most Americans agree with this statement. The surprisingly informative as well as entertaining movie, The Big Short, along with Bernie Sanders rise, have helped in reinforcing conversation about the inequality increasing across throughout the world.2 We can see that the system is rigged, but as the recent uproar over the lottery has shown, we still want to be millionaires, and that's the problem: we all can't.

Recently I went out on the bay of Seattle for a family brunch cruise. The small cruise takes you all throughout the bay passing by small islands decked out with large homes. Passing halfway by one of the islands, the Captain comes onto the intercom to announce that we're passing Bill Gate's House. The Captain continues to give us the details of the interior, as the house has 24 bathrooms, 6 kitchens, 2,100 square foot library, a garage that can accommodate 23 cars and over a dozen security guards who patrol the area. The Captain also reminds us that although when building this house he was nice enough to pay off their mortgage and send them all on trips across the world.

A sense of appreciation for this man's greatness who, with his own money, was willing to pay not only his neighbors house mortgage but also willing to send them anywhere they wanted to go free of charge. All of this done so they could avoid the annoyance of Gate's building his fortress, which would take seven years to complete. Talk about altruism! And people on the boat were amazed, impressed. One could easily sense the ounce of pride one has for themselves with having so much money. The luxury, freedom, and of course, the liberty to do as you please.

A woman behind us who brought her daughter on the cruise to celebrate her birthday was talking about how great and generous Bill and his wife Melinda are with their charities. They save Africa from diseases, help fight the “corruption” of public schools with the implementation of the equally nefarious charter schools,3and help bankrupt communities by funding the harsh oppression of slave labor.4 What can't they do?

This is the beauty of capitalism: it's inspiring. We hear these grandiose stories and our conversations of the rich having too much money and the people working two or three jobs barely making it completely disappears. We can talk about the corruption of politicians working in favor of private interests but once we see their palace, and connect the idea they give charity our hearts warm and our desires for a similar lifestyle null any sense of logic on income equality disparities we had before. Ironically enough, Bill Gates recently admitted Capitalism won't solve Climate change, especially considering he helps sustain the corrupt and inept culture of fossil fuels.5

We see rich people's homes and imagine ourselves one day that can be us. Although in most cases, my generation is already living on less than what are my parents were. We are the first generation not to live a better life than our parents.6We own less money, have more debt, and it's not because we're lazy. In fact, we've been more productive than our grandparents generation and get paid less for it. And this is the problem.7 The transfer of wealth has changed hands.

How can we possibly look at one house that has 24 bathrooms whose owner is worth well over 80 billion dollars and not make the connection of why 578,424 are homeless,8 and more than half of Americans can’t afford their house or rent.9 Even if you made the argument that Gates paid the other occupants mortgages, it only went to a very small percentage of people who were already well-off (did I mention their living on a island). But this again forgoes the bigger picture of the majority of the population falling ever more into the lower brackets of poverty.

Many economist will remark that the top .01% will own as much wealth as the bottom 90%.10The irony with this statement is that the bottom half don’t even own wealth. All the money they account for goes right back into the economy or to pay off debts. There are a few lucky with enough equity in their homes, but even some have to use that equity to make up for their stagnant wages.11 And debts have been growing since the 80’s which has nothing to do with laziness. They’ve gone into debt to keep up with the increase in costs of goods and services while not seeing an increase in their wages. It’s simple to understand, especially when you look at the fact that 95% of the income gains has gone to the top 1%.12

People continue to see the federal and local governments raise taxes on the lower and middle classand we're still left with broken roads, weak public transits, and an already failing new bay bridge.13,14 People are right to point at the corruption in government. It's been hijacked by corporations and private interest who are pulling the strings. Democrats and Republicans both agree that “Crony Capitalism” isn't working and we need to change it.

We look to figures like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and see people who have attained large wealth but are feeding it back into the community through charity. Zuckerberg has adored fans with his recent charity to a non-profit, which turned out to be a for-profit group.15 When one actually looks into these charity groups, one can see that the money is usually going to a non-profit or disclosed group and the charity is used as a write off, but the public only hears the words charity and their hearts warm to the idea of a billionaire handing over their money to help other, missing out on the real reason for these “generous” donations as a way for them to save on taxes. People seem to understand that they haven’t been getting paid well and their benefits have been getting cut while other expenses have continued to rise. It’s the reason people are protesting for $15 an hour. The paradox is is that when we see the unattainable glories of other people's “rewards” from capitalism, we don’t make the connection that that glory came at our cost. A cost to the relentless tax breaks on the rich, the underfunding of our schools, forgoing repairs on our infrastructure, and local economies. Instead we just see a life that maybe, just maybe if we work hard enough, we can attain.

A majority of people will never become millionaires. The most recent popular excitement over the billion dollar lottery is a perfect example of this. As income inequality grows and opportunity to rise the economic ladder continues to disappear, there will only be a smaller and smaller group owning that piece of the pie while the rest of us struggle and suffer below. Without people making the connection that the transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class to the upper class, the less potential there is of actually solving the problem.

A couple weeks have passed since the public uproar over the dramatic price increase for Daraprim drug orchestrated by Turing Pharmaceutical CEO Martin Shkreli. Many took to twitter to condemn the 32 year-old CEO’s schemes in jacking up the price of a life-saving drug 5,500%. Anonymous got in on the act leaking his personal information online in effort to even the score. Martin Shkreli came back to the media to say the price would be lowered, though not disclosing to what amount. The public won, right?

Aside from getting into the history of corruption of the pharmaceutical industry and its long history of price gouging the public, we can take pride in the speed at which Shkreli came on scene displaying his ego and unethical disregard for the price hike, only to bend to the will of the masses. The problem with this situation -- along with the ignored history of corporations and hedge funds having a history of screwing over the public for the greater means of profits -- is that Shkreli put himself out there as an easy and identifiable target we could blame.

By confronting the public and appearing in interview after interview to explain the necessity of raising the price to make an “actual profit,” Shkreli made himself tangible. It wasn’t just some abstract company name that we could pretend to boycott. It wasn’t some faceless corporation that extends itself into a variety of other public channels that make it impossible to avoid. Shkreli was the face of his company, and when he stepped out to confront the crowds, letting his hubris get the better of him, the public swarmed at the opportunity to enact their justice.

The system in which he was operating under and catered towards was his own individual wealth. He was enacting the laws and spewing the same mathematical reasoning that have led top economists to obsess over the market, admitting it can do no wrong. But the economy isn’t some scientific theory that can be explained through "market," the market is at the whim of human error, political influence, and greed. Many of the neoclassical economist would regard these as reasons why we can only rely on the market and without interference of the government and regulation, it will lead us to justice and a better world.

But we’ve been deregulating the market for decades and things have only gotten worse for the majority and only better for a few, revealing how reliable the market really is in leading everyone to prosperity and justice. And when we look to people like Shkreli as just a bad apple we’re ignoring that’s what the system has been breeding for the last four decades.

The rise of finance capital and the exploitation of hedge funds have helped people like Shrkeli do what they do and believe what they believe. And without acknowledging the systemic issues, Shkreli’s behavior will continue through other corporations and hedge fund groups, as they have. It will just be more difficult to target, because in most cases corporations and hedge funds have remained in the dark, making it impossible for people to target. Knowing where the root of the problem lies can help lead people in the right direction to actually change the system.

The rise of finance has grown exponentially in the last four decades. Until the 1980’’s finance made only 18% of corporate profits and in 2006 it made up 40% of corporate profit. By 2007 financial assets were 10 times the size of GDP.

To fully understand the impact this has on the overall economy we also need to account the increase of income inequality during the same period. As many economist have noted, wages have been stagnate since the 1970’s, only making up for the increased costs of items by depending more on credit and going into debt and having women taking up a bigger part of the workforce. During this time many corporations have shifted their workforce abroad, and moved their profits from production to finance.

Aside from drawing the obvious conclusions that corporations have offset their production abroad for cheaper labor and have since become involved in financial transactions with other companies keeping their company’s profit soaring, we can begin to make the assessment that finance has taken the place of value over real profit. Coastas Lapavitsas, an economist who has been studying the growth of finance before the recession, writes, “Expanding international flows of capital have forced developing countries to hold vast international reserves in recent years. The result has been net lending by the poor to the rich in the world economy, particularly to the USA.”

Gerald Epstein, a professor of economics, in an interview with Dollars & Sense spoke of the “boring banking” period following the regulations on the market after the 1929 crash. Investment banks were separated from finance, and both had to have high capital, higher interest rates, and were to be used for particular things. “Savings and loans primarily housing, commercial banking for business loans, but investment banking could not take deposit of commercial banking.” The two were separate.

Moving into the late 1970’s deregulation began and “‘Boring banking’ could no longer compete, so instead of engaging in one-to-one lending, they started engaging in more activities with the capital markets—bundling up or securitizing loans, selling them off, using derivatives to hedge risks but also to make bets. They kind of became like hedge funds in the sense of doing a lot of trading, buying and selling a lot of derivatives, engaging with the securities and capital markets. But they still had the government guarantees like they were banks.”

Many seem to already understand that banks have been part of the problem, but they still misunderstand that finance doesn’t just extend to banks. Companies have only continued to profit since the recession because of finance and redistributing their profits into their own company, forgoing investment in infrastructure and employment. This only props up their stock -- without actually producing anything -- and therefore providing the illusion the market is great.

That’s the beauty and appeal of finance, it’s a simple way of making tons of money out of nothing. There is no production involved and very little, if any, labor. Companies make money from nothing. Bundling other people’s money into derivatives and selling them off to make money is not producing. It’s not contributing to society, but our politicians continue to convince us otherwise.

You don’t even have to look at the big picture to understand this, it’s common in most households across the US. Every person who goes into debt for school, or is underwater with their mortgage, or uses their mortgage as equity is fulfilling the void of where livable wages used to be. At the same time, everything has gone up from medical expenses, to education, to housing for the consumers, while these same areas are pulling in huge profit for the market. And this is the problem, the system is so intertwined we seem incapable of making the connection.

These things are meant to be complicated for the sake of being complicated. Economist's don’t know what the hell is going on half the time or they play dumb because economics is political and they have an agenda. Consider the time when former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan was dumbfounded to see the housing bubble collapse.

The media is at the center of pushing this agenda. When the media talks about how well the economy is recovering, it’s in reference to the stock market, or how many new jobs were added. They don’t mention that most jobs are in the low-wage sector and they don’t make the connection that the fight for $15 is not about jobs, but is about not receiving a livable wage.

Syriza has been in office for five months now and the government struggles to agree on a deal that wouldn’t force them to continue austerity. Many critics have been pointing out the cracks in the Syriza government and see the hope that pushed the party to victory fading away. Others, however, see the government’s ambitious talk of being able to rid the country of austerity just that --too ambitious. But, if anything, it just reveals how relentlessness the system of economics who control groups like the troika (European Commission, European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) against those who try to make a more equal and democratic society actually is.

Syriza has been bending to the demands of the troika, until now. With the June 30th day passed and no agreements met, Greece may be on it’s way to exiting the EU (something Syriza doesn’t want to do). This would have a large impact on the EU as well as destabilizing effect on the world economy. But Greece has been left with few alternatives, especially with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the ECB (European Central Bank) standing sternly with the continued enforcement of austerity.

Greece has been put in an unfair situation since the beginning of the recession. Since the enactment of the austerity, the country has suffered worse unemployment (hovering around 60% for youth unemployment) and poverty than the US did during the Great Depression.

Greece was accepted into the EU with a deficit. Once accepted into the EU, outside investors exploited the landscape along with local investors who saw the opportunity for growth in their country with reckless investments. When signs of the crash began to appear, they fled, exploding the deficit further.

The election of PASOK party’s Prime minister George Papandreou, the socialist leader who betrayed his constituents and party, served the first hand of austerity to the public. And now seven years later, Greece has only accumulated more debt, no growth, and continued massive unemployment, with little to no opportunity for the citizenship that had no control over the debt that has engulfed their country.

Germany and the European Central Bank wanted to their investors and banks to get paid back for their losses that took place during the recession and the IMF was there to ensure such a thing would happen.

When the crisis hit, Greece wasn’t the only country hurting. The EU was unstable and to many it looked like it was about to collapse. One way to keep countries like Germany, and other European Financial institutions profitable was to squeeze the money out of debtor countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland (with the assistance of the IMF). But the IMF was aware of what damage these measure could inflict on countries like Greece.

Back in 2010 when the IMF contemplated debt restructure in favor of EMU (Economic and Monetary Union which makes up the eurozone) and European Financial Institutions, Arvind Virmani, India’s member of the IMF, said “Even if, arguably, the programme is successfully implemented, it could trigger a deflationary spiral of falling prices, falling employment and falling fiscal revenues that could eventually undermine the programme itself." And this is what happened.

Now several years of continued crippling debt, along with report after report revealing the unnecessary and brutal implications of enforcing austerity on countries has, there is no real growth or change to show. But it has never been about helping Greece and its people. The economic institutions were there to help the banks and investors get their money, not a country of people who were caught in between a deregulated and a shady market.

Yet, this is the key point of what is happening throughout the world. Corrupt economic models are running the show offering little to no alteration other than continuing upon its own demands. Syriza is allowing the public to vote on a referendum on whether to continue with the current terms and continue austerity or push for another direction. And if Greece falls out of the EU, they will go through some more turmoil. Investors and the EU will leave Greece. Greece’s markets will collapse, but without the EU, they will have the capacity to reprint money and start funding projects, jobs and rebuild their broken economy.

Either way, Greece has a difficult few months or years of moving forward, but the option should be up to the people in allowing them to build the type of future they want. The IMF could alter this grexit. Taking a note from Keynes, they could enforce the eurozone and creditors to use their surpluses to make long term investment in Greece, allowing Greece to produce and grow their export market, building up their economy and use their newfound surplus to pay off its debt. This model was used with Britain when they struggled to make a dent in their debt after World War II.

The other option could be debt forgiveness. This was an action that was ironically handed down to Germany after World War II who owed creditors Greece and Spain (two countries, along with Ireland, paralyzed by austerity). While the arguments that Germany’s debt than is different to Greece’s debt today, it’s the action itself that allowed Germany to rebuild itself and begin to live again; unlike Greece.

Regardless of the what Syriza decides to do as they await for the referendum, people should stand with Greece. What happens next can present an expectation of what to come for other countries being restricted by the IMF, EU and similar economic policies that are enforced throughout the world.

For those who think Greece is acting unfairly for trying to get out of the harsh terms of their bailout ignore that even the institution who implemented the policy was well aware of the damage that’s being done to the Greek citizens. As Ashoka Mody, former chief of the IMF’s bailout in Ireland said, “Everything that we have learned over the last five years is that it is stunningly bad economics to enforce austerity on a country when it is in a deflationary cycle...Syriza should recruit the IMF’s research department to be their spokesman because they are saying almost exactly the same thing as Syriza on the economics of this. The entire strategy of the creditors is wrong and the longer this goes on, the more it's going to cost them.”

Years after the recession, no acts have been implemented to deter the policies that continue to be pushed forward with the creditors, economists, and politicians, as the continue the reign of of risky financial investment. As public outcry begins to boil over into the streets and country after country is looking for new economic models, the governments will have to listen to their citizens or continue their betrayal of working for corporations and bankers instead of its people.

The recent60-page report, “All the President's Psychologists,” exposes shared emails between the American Psychology Association (APA) -- the largest group of psychologist in the world -- and the Bush administration and their willing participation in torture. The report, released by psychologists and members of the APA, reveals the true depths the government went to in order to use torture.

Aside from the report giving us an understanding of how deep the rabbit hole goes concerning who was involved in the torture program, it also highlights the extensive lengths the government went to creating and operating such a program. The reality being that the government didn't just accidentally allow such a program to occur, but carefully planned out each part with the backing of many key players should make every US citizen very concerned.

This report comes out months after the official torture report, which gave an in-depth description of the program and various methods that were used on detainees. The APA report follows after the Physicians for Human Rights report, which exposed the involvement of Health and Medical workers assisting and partaking in torture and experiments on prisoners in direct violation of the Nuremberg code.

The new report on the APA reveals that the psychologists drafted guidelines for the practice and use of torture, while the physicians were the ones who were involved in designing the tactics that were inflicting the harm. The importance of having these two groups involved in torture is that without them, torture never would have been able to happen. As Nathaniel Raymond, Research Ethics adviser for Physicians for Human Rights, said in aDemocracy Now! interview: “The health professionals were the get-out-of-jail-free card, the legal indemnification for the White House.”

What’s troubling about this new report on the further collusion between the medical professionals and government is that we continue to see little to no reporting of it in the news. Many media personalities, if they mention torture, still debate whether or not we technically tortured, or that referring to it as ‘torture’ is being biased, as in the case with NPR. Other commentators argue that releasing the report was harmful to our national security, with no evidence to back their claim. And then there are those that argue that torture was necessary in fighting these types of wars and preventing future attacks -- ignoring the first two pages in the initial report that state torture did not provide actual information

When torture is discussed in the media, the rhetoric tiptoes its way around the ethical and legal concerns of the program. Without a proper and serious conversation on torture, we see polls that show the public to be in favor of the CIA use of torture following the 9/11 attacks. This reveals the distorted level of how we address these issues in public. The victims of false imprisonment, rendition, and torture are rarely, if ever, discussed when we talk about torture. In many cases, especially in Guantanamo, there are a lot of detainees that are innocent of their crimes, or have been held for over a decade without being convicted of anything.

Innocent victims that are released back into the public after being detained for a prolonged period of time receive little media attention and no acknowledgment of being wrongfully held captive. When they or their countries try to sue the US, the US government doesn't even allow the the case to go to court in order to keep the country’s actions abroad a secret from the public.

As our government continues to extend the use of “secrecy” and “national risks” as a defense against further evaluation into such programs, it will only become more and more difficult to enact change. Aside from the report on the APA's breach of trust and betraying their own ethical standards by providing information and being willing participants in the use of torture, we are furthering ourselves from the reality of what actually goes on in our military endeavors. Without an informed public and open dialogue, we fail to prevent these kind of things from happening again.

Even as we move closer to the election year and candidates for both the democratic and republican party surface, some are still questioning the validity of the invasion in Iraq and pushing for more dramatic military approach with Iran. Although Obama has ended the torture programs, renditions and illegal detentions continue. For those who only see this policy as a foreign issue fail to acknowledge the illegal detentions that have surfaced back home. Immigrant detention centers with horrid situations have popped up in Texas. Chicago is facing its own issues with their “black site” where torture by police and prison guards have surfaced in an ongoing report by The Guardian.

As we continue to confront the various organizations that helped cultivate the torture program, we must make sure the participants are held accountable. If anything, their reputation has already been tarnished by their complete disregard of maintaining their own standards. We should push to hold everyone accountable who purposefully misled our country into foreign affairs that left over a million dead, several million more displaced, and others who continue to linger in detention centers across the ocean. I even extend this accountability to people like Obama, who have only continued the growth of the cancer that is US foreign policy.

Moving forward into the next presidency, it should bother every citizen as to what power the next candidate will push for, regardless of party. To not alter and hold those accountable of wrongdoing leaves the path open for dissolving more civil liberties and freedoms of citizens abroad and at home. Our best push for change begins with denying the reenactment of the Patriot Act (which expires June 1st, unless it’s reauthorized before then). As Raymond said in Democracy Now!, “Until we restore the rule of law by holding those who gave the order accountable—not the people, the burger flippers at the bottom, not middle management, but the chain of command from the top—we have not done what the law requires.”

Trade deals have commonly been organized and planned out in secret. Most trade deals have a history of being sponsored as opening the market for more trade, more jobs, and more freedom. In the free market philosophy the US abides by, it only seems that the TPP would be a continuation of this ideology. And it is. But with the recent historic record profits to the top 1%, the stagnated -- and in most cases dropping -- wages for the middle class, the disappearing middle class, and stripping of environmental regulations, this is not a good thing.

So, what is the TPP? The Trans-Pacific-Partnership is a trade deal with 12 countries throughout the Asian-Pacific: Australia, Brunei,Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. The deal opens up more markets within each of these countries in order to allow freer trade. But the reality is, aside from the little information wikileaks was able to retrieve and expose, nobody fully knows what the trade deal is about because it's all been debated behind closed doors with the leaders of each government. Those who have researched the leaked material refer to the deal as a “Trojan horse,” a coup d'etat, and NAFTA on steroids (the last big trade agreement passed in 1994). NAFTA (North-Atlantic-Trade-Agreement) was passed by the Clinton administration under the guise of providing more US jobs between the US, Canada and Mexico. Instead thetrade deal gutted jobs by shipping US manufacturing jobs overseas to Mexico and Mexican and US agricultural and farming collapsing under the takeover of large agribusinesses.

Five years later protests erupted in Seattle in 1999 against the expansion of trade deals being discussed with the WTO (World Trade Organization). Both the US and the world were stunned as they saw a glimpse of how misguided and secret the trade deals were for the general public and how handsomely it serviced corporations. The protests sparked something in the public’s mind for a second, although it was glossed over by the news with the minor property damage brought about from a small faction called the black bloc (who were separate from the general protests, something that would never be clarified in the media).To the protesters success they were able to postpone talks that year. Unfortunately since then, trade negotiations have only become more secretive and at events like the WTO and other trade meetings, there is a limit at which the public can protest, making it impossible to disrupt the passing of deals, let alone, become more democratic.

The more recent KORUS (Korean Free Trade Agreement with the US) passed in 2012 with the promise of jobs is already seeing repercussions. In the last two years exports to Korea have dropped and imports from Korea to the US increased, while 60,000 US jobs have been lost in the decrease of exported goods. KORUS, which was a template for the bigger TPP deal, is only a glimpse of what we can expect on a bigger scale if the TPP is passed. At the same time as TPP is being discussed, the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership) trade deal between the EU and the US is also being talked over. While the EU is beginning to release some information about the content of the deal, it’s just another opportunity for corporations and governments to make the world more free for business at workers and democracy's expense.

But how does this affect the general individual living in the US? The WTO has been able to legally strip parts of the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, overriding governmental regulation in the name of free trade. In several cases under NAFTA, US and Canadian corporations sued each other’s governments for regulating and banning dangerous chemicals. Each government’s response to the other was to back down for fear of a lawsuit, and pay the corporation a fee compensation, and then promote the product as “safe” even with little scientific evidence. In NAFTA's first few years over 600,000 jobs were lost in the US alone and many of the new jobs that were “promised” under the trade deal were at a lower wage and less secure.

The thing about the WTO, GATT, and NAFTA is that they are all run with no democratic authority. So when a case comes out that governments are being sued by a corporation for disrupting their market, it’s NAFTA that get's to decide whether it wants to side with the government and its own constitution, or rule in favor of the corporation. It's the beauty of freeing up the markets; you don't have to worry about constitutional limits from governments anymore. While most countries are restricted by trade agreements, or lack of agreements in those who don't have a choice, some countries can still ignore the penalties of trade infringement as was the case with the US not wanting to cut cotton subsidies, even though cutting their subsidies would lift the price and help markets in South Africa.

Although these trade deals have already been in effect, how does the TPP differ? The TPP is like NAFTA, but it can even restrict harsher penalties on its countries in favor of trade. The TPP can undermine not only federal policies but state andcity protections of workers. Any environmental regulations or environmental promoted projects can be overturned if it infringes upon an oil and gas companies market share. A rule in the TPP would make it illegal to favor small business over big businesses.The recent news of pushing for stronger protection of net neutrality rights can be overturned by internet companies who suggest that it cuts into their profits. The TPP basically overrides any form of democracy we have left in this country and abroad.And for those who may think the trade deal isn't going to happen any time soon need to understand it's already being discussed whether to Fast-track it through congress. Fast-tracking the deal would allow Obama to approve the deal, which he is hoping for, and override a vote needed by congress. And with most Republicans, and some Democrats, in favor of the deal, the Fast-track can quicken the passing by the end of this year, if not earlier. And once it's passed, that's it. The battle will become that much harder to fight. NAFTA is the best example of this as we just passed the twenty-year anniversary of the deal and it's still standing as things have only gotten worse for all the countries involved (with the exception of the rich and businesses).

While it might seem easy to feel like there is nothing you can do, you need to realize that we still have a chance to convince congress to deny the president fast-track approval and postpone the deal. During this time we can push congress to create a more fair trade deal that could better represent countries and its democratic values instead of some abstract market that is consistently favorable to a small few and easily manipulated.To understand what's at stake is the first step in acknowledging the problem. By assessing the public's reaction to the potential passing of a trade deal will influence our leaders to act. And if it doesn't, we let our voices be heard in the next election. The choice is ours whether we want to save this idea of democracy we're struggling to hold together. And to be honest, the people have been in streets, politicians are speaking out harshly against the deal. We just have to acknowledge, regardless of party or political beliefs, that if we truly want to live in a democracy, we have to stop this deal.

It’s been six years since the economic recession where we saw people lose their homes, jobs, livelihoods, and we’re still nowhere close to transitioning our economy into a different direction. Or are we? The “sharing” economy is quickly becoming a fan favorite for both progressives and libertarians. But does this new model of economics have staying power, is it a fad, or worse, is it a new cloak for businesses to hide behind while stripping workers and consumers of their security?

Airbnb, Uber, and Lyft are just a few of the top names we know that make up the growing trend labeled the “sharing economy.” Its purpose: to progress into an economic model that is P2P, people to people. A model that is supposed to reduce our reliance on big corporations and instead reach out to our common neighbor to share and conduct business. While it supposedly offers a new direction away from the capitalist model, its creators are ignoring problems of the current economy.

The sharing economy, for many, is the next evolutionary step of transitioning all business transactions to be solely online. The sharing model shares many similarities of that with the '90s dot-com boom and the with the type of thinking of using online to transform businesses. And while the sharing economy is a booming market and quickly expanding, its impact on the economy as a whole is too early to determine the true nature of what is to become of the movement. At the moment, the current display of values each company is professing and what their collective impact on individuals actually is paints a complicated and alarming picture.

Airbnb and Uber are the two most famous examples of the sharing economy with their dramatic growth in the last couple years. Airbnb has exploded into the market allowing people to rent out their home or parts of their home through the internet. Uber, in a similar fashion, is quickly altering the way we think of taxi services – potentially making those yellow cabs obsolete – as the company runs on workers who use their own vehicles to taxi customers around using an app on their phone to connect with nearby drivers.

These two services are a welcome alternative to the otherwise expensive and inconvenience of finding a hotel, or waiting for that yellow cab to appear to take you to your next destination. In our sped-up world where convenience is king, we attribute these kinds of quick reaction and near-instant gratification as beneficial for everyone. We're all on the go and all have something else to be doing than wasting money, or worse, wasting time.

Proponents speak of the all-inclusive ability of the sharing economy to allow everyone to connect with each other. It's a way to navigate around the evil and impersonal corporation. Some might take note of the irony here, especially when looking further into the profiles of those running Uber, Airbnb and other various sharing economy businesses. Uber alone is valued at $41 billion and is continuing to expand, even while breaking the law and dealing with potential lawsuits in various cities. Airbnb, which started in the drearily gentrified city of San Francisco, is in the works with a private firm that would place their value at $13 billion. With both Uber and Airbnb, the actual providers of goods and services,the people renting out their homes and vehicles, don't share in the value of income that the people in the corporate offices of these businesses do.

Working 60-hour work weeks, drivers of Uber are lucky if they pull in $14 an hour. And this is on top of the restrictive rating system. Airbnb renters income can range from $15,000 to $75,000 a year. In most cases, homeowners using Airbnb have helped them maintain their apartment or home in the face of looming eviction.

The largest misconception when calling this movement a “sharing” economy is that it actually perpetuates the gentrification of neighborhoods with the subletting of rooms from owners and renters facing foreclosure due to lack of funds. Airbnb itself is not the main driver for gentrifying cities like San Francisco, but their presence along with other tech companies is a major cause. In order to diffuse gentrification, cities restrict short term leases or subletting and Airbnb attempts to stop the practice, but they are only bandaging a problem for those who might otherwise be homeless or live in neighborhoods that are financially unfeasible.

As the company attributes itself with opening up the economy to make a world where people can work and share with each other, some of the leadership in the company echo the divide that is being felt in lower-income neighborhoods. A video that went viral last year shows the techies from Airbnb renting out an otherwise public soccer ball field. The video shows a local resident, who was eventually forced out of his home in the Mission district, explaining to the techies that it's a public field and trying to compromise and play together, a common practice in the community.The techies instead decide to split up the field, keeping the barriers between the haves and soon-to-be have-nots.

To be fair, Airbnb has helped some cities, such as assisting the city of San Francisco to pull in more local dollars to business that aren't often seen by tourists and visitors who stay in hotels. Yet, the issue that comes with companies like Airbnb and Uber is their appearance as a friendly and non-corporate entity to avoid having to expose the negative aspects of their business. By framing the dialogue of their movement with words like “sharing” they are appealing to the progressives ideals of being communal, but in reality, they proceed under the same corporate model structure of profit flow. They are neoliberal projects hiding under the guise of progressive politics.

By creating a sense of community and allowing workers to partake in their environment, they can persuade the public that they are good and helpful. With the cheaper prices, avoiding unions, circumventing taxes, and in some cases ignoring city or state laws, they appeal to the people who might otherwise opt of out to vacationing in the city or country. And with Airbnb expanding to allow businesses using the service, it will alter the way companies and other corporations might look at business trips with the cheaper housing costs. Again, this a direct benefit to the upper class, while the middle and lower class continue their descent into poverty, if they're not already there.

The CEO and founders of Airbnb and Uber are counting on people to connect with the idea that the market and rules of the economy have changed after the recession. Millennials no longer look at employment as a stable and secure position. It's what images we present on our social media that we can sell; we are the commodity. Our identity is therefore connected to the person we sell online and it's through this that we make a living.

While I'll admit, I don't think that office job for life is going to come back, nor would I want it, I think the fact that by sidestepping job security and liveable wages these businesses and this economic model is harmful to future generations. We may not have those secure jobs for life our parents had, but people still want a job that provides some security, some insurance, and a liveable wage.

In most cases, a large portion of the sharing economy is made up of workers who are in transitional phases; working a job and looking for extra income, students, or college graduates that are struggle to find a job in ever shrinking market. Many may argue that's where the sharing economy is helping. But, as I've said earlier, they aren't looking to solve the root of these problems.

Common Dreams had a fantastic piece that gets in depth on the many things the sharing economy model can do if they want to have a real changing effect. Things like working to stomp out poverty by providing livable wages. Using their profits in environmental models that would pull our dependence away from fossil fuels. And companies like Uber and Lyft would be more helpful to combating global warming and making the world reduce its consumption by investing into public transportation.

Using the word “sharing” is key to promoting their friendly image in creating their business model. Co-op's and real worker owned companies are actually having positive impacts and the real potential economic model for change. If these billion dollar companies were to break up the corporate model and turn their business model into a co-op or worker-run company (especially in cases like Airbnb and Uber where the workers are not only doing the work but providing the raw materials: cars and homes) that would be a real sharing economy. To build an economy based around worker owned companies would be a game changer and really address the issues that tend to arise when a private or public company grows quickly and leaves little for the workers below.

There are many good companies that are part of the sharing economy and using it as a means to make a profit and positively contribute to communities. I picked Uber and Airbnb because they are the most famous and biggest drivers as to what happens next. I fear that if anything these companies will expand and continue to exploit the workers and continue the current economic trend of not solving anything. I fear they might continue to take advantage of those who are in debt with the appeal that they can go on a cheap vacation while dismantling the unions and workers rights that are already disappearing. By acknowledging these issues now, consumers can push these companies to be true to what they preach. Otherwise, we'll be sold into a way of thinking that will leave more people struggling, and a world more divided.

Recently, a YouTube group has released a couple videos in an effort to grow poverty awareness. The most recent shows a child who looks around 12 years old, who pretends to be homeless, sitting on the sidewalk of a busy street asking for help as he freezes in the cold. Several minutes pass showing people walk by the kid and take notice of him, but not stop to help him. Towards the end, a homeless man goes over to console the kid. Although these videos may jolt some into action and make us become more aware of a person who might be in need, they also touch on the deeper issue of our growing discontent of seeing and living with the homeless.Many assume that living on the streets is an outcome earned by those individuals themselves. The homeless man or woman made a wrong choice and maybe we think they don’t deserve to live on the streets, but we’re not going to help them either. It further distracts the public from the growing inequality that continues even as we move away from the recession into a “recovery.” The truth is, 44% of the homeless population do have jobs.The real issue is the way we perceive the homeless in economic and social terms. We can see it with the cutting of social programs and housing developments by our politicians and ruling economists. We can see it with cities like San Francisco as they try to literally wash away their problem, and with Florida arresting people who want to feed the homeless, and with stores installing spikes to stop homeless from sleeping in public areas. To fully acknowledge the issue of people being homeless and its continued growth, we need to alter the way we see these individuals.Around 20-25% of homeless adults suffer from a mental illness. This highlights two important aspects of homelessness’ history. Since the 1980’s, we began to cut the budget to mental hospitals and its underfunding has continued to this day. This didn’t leave any options for people suffering with mental illnesses to go.At the same time there are almost 50,000 veterans (many who suffer from PTSD) who find themselves living on the street any given night. This is particularly significant in comparison to our bloated military budget that’s handed off to military contracts and continues the expansion of 900 bases across the world. This signifies that there is money available to fix the problem, but the unwillingness to grant this money to those returning home from war is a continuation of our economic and political ruling ideology.A recent video surfaced showing a former veteran harassing a homeless person because he found out the homeless man was wearing military jacket even though he had never served in any army. Aside from taking part in the persecution of the homeless, the former veteran does little to examine the man’s background. He doesn’t know the man, yet he feels that wearing clothing from the military is an insult that has to be pointed out and stopped. The issues of poverty or the fact that this man is literally living in the streets never enter into the veteran’s mind — instead he focuses on the superficial image of “patriotism.” Is it patriotic to disregard the poorer sections of your community? For many returning veterans, the irony of the situation is not missed, as most can relate to the homeless man’s predicament of being misunderstood, persecuted.But how can we begin to acknowledge the issue of poverty in this country without acknowledging the economic model we all live under? Our economists may have different points of view, but they all come from a similar background of how to present economics. Whether neoclassical, Keynesian, or neoliberal, these groups help in promoting the segregation of the classes and the growth of inequality. They do this simply by not acknowledging it or framing it in a different manner where people blame each other and become distracted from the real issue. It’s impossible to have an actual debate on poverty and classes without being seen as the perpetrator of class warfare.And those who would point to growing movements like the $15-an-hour wage protests, or companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s raising wages to $10 an hour (in the case of McDonald’s, only a small portion of their staff would receive the wage increase), entirely miss the point. While the $15-an-hour wage increase is important, it doesn’t address the roots of the problem that make up and run our economy: the big banks, the lack of regulation of financial trading, the sub-prime car loans, stagnating wages, lack of investment in infrastructure, the housing bubble, pay-day loans, charter schools using public land while cutting the budgets of public schools. The list goes on.As the Federal Reserve continues to extend its low interest rates for lending to big businesses and the banks, these groups are still slow on extending that money to the public. We’re also not seeing an increase in well-paying jobs with security as the economy grows. We’re not seeing investment into local communities that could helping deteriorating cities like Detroit, Baltimore (which is becoming the new Detroit), and many other cities.The politicians fall in line – if they’re not already in the pockets – of pay-day loans and the growth of debtor prisons (which were ruled illegal since 1833). Jon Oliver has done a fantastic job on illustrating these troubling issues that affect the middle and lower class on his show Last Week Tonight. These issues are of course products of creating poverty and homelessness, and without change it will only get worse.To highlight our disconnect of poverty even further, look to liberal bastion cities like New York and San Francisco (San Francisco being the most expensive place to live in the US) to see how much rent has skyrocketed in these cities in the last decade. The dramatic increase in rent has gentrified neighborhoods and created the most segregated schools in the US. These are cities that are supposed to extend help to the community, but both cities are continuing to see an increased income divide and a loss of culture as their economy gets “better.”Even in my own city of Corvallis with the opening of a wet homeless shelter, debate continuesas people already are getting anxious about the growing presence of homeless living in our parks, and of finding needles in a park across the street from a school. People who might like to do more for the panhandler looking up at them as they enter the grocery store have their own busy lives to live.Yet, when I look around my own town, I see the people, young and old, in the streets. I learn that many of the people here are veterans, have lost their jobs, come from troubled and abusive homes. Some struggle with heroin and meth addiction, but that only highlights another symptom of poverty. Without hope, what is there to hold on to?Utah has been one of the first states to implement a simple solution that is the best one so far: they created housing for the homeless. After doing the math and seeing that it cost more to have people living on the streets with medical bills, they built housing. In most cases, it’s allowed people who lived on the streets without employment to actually be hired and hold onto jobs.More cities are coming together to build tiny home communities for their homeless. And while these solutions may not alter the presence of poverty right away, they are creating a communal spirit that is challenging the current economic model and beginning the transition to something better for everyone.

As we continue to see the price of oil hover around$40 and $50 per barrel for the last couple months, many people are wondering when the next shift is going to happen. Some have gone as far as to claim the winners and losers. Do we need confirmation to know that Big Oil always wins in the end? That might not be the case this time and we might be given an opportunity to change the way we approach the next step for our economy, environment, and our democracy.Oil is not going away. In fact, by most counts, it’s cutting its production and development, ripping up contracts, and laying off workers in order to keep a profit with the sudden drop in price in the last months of 2014 and its continued low price into 2015. As we continue to witness depressed prices and an overabundant supply of oil, what can we do to alter our direction and dependence away from oil and onto processes that will benefit not only the environment, but allow us to maintain a working and more equal economy?Well, for starters, to properly judge the situation, it’s good to acknowledge the fact that oil production and consumption has increased over the last few decades. China being at the forefront with an increase in consumption of 7 million barrels a day in 2005 to 11 million barrels in 2014 and countries like India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia following suit.So where did the sudden drop in prices occur? With the continued effects being felt from the economic recession, Europe, Japan, and China have been seeing sluggish economic growth. The demand for oil slowed down a bit as production continued.The US and Canada, with their booming investments into Bakken crude, shale, and tar sands production throughout the last couple years, saw a dramatic increase in oil and gas available for the public to consume. Under most circumstances, OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) and Saudi Arabia, the largest player in OPEC, would cut their production and wait for prices to increase before they started production again, that way they wouldn’t lose profit. This time, Saudi Arabia, going against most members in OPEC, is deciding to wait it out and continuing production regardless of the drop in prices. Their goal being to retrieve a majority control of the oil market again. Even if they do lose some profit, they can hold out longer than US oil producers, who have a more expensive process of retrieving oil.

It seems that Saudi Arabia may be able to attain its goal. Although most oil producers need $70-$90 per barrel to break even or pull in some sort of profit, the $40-$50 is hurting US oil producers in the same manner it’s hurting other OPEC countries like Venezuela, or even Russia. The two biggest producers in the US, Texas and North Dakota, who saw a dramatic boom just months earlier, are cutting production back. In what many predicted to be a year of growing production of shale, we’re already seeing a cut of its production by 30%.The irony being that as we see oil companies lose money and lay off workers, the US consumer is actually seeing a break. The consumer is able to save $750 annually, money that would otherwise be spent at the pump. By being able to save money, consumers are able to use it for other commodities, which can help the economy grow. Corporations and other businesses are also seeing an increase in savings as they spend less on gas to transport their products around the country and world.The lower cost at the pump is beneficial to the consumer and businesses, but it’s also making us continue to rely on oil and its production. In some cases, people are resorting back to purchasing gas guzzling cars again, since their prices have dropped due to the lack of demand over the years.

And if we continue the process of hydraulic fracturing shale and tar sands oil, we’ll continue to see the destruction of towns, water supply, and people’s health. By mid-February, we saw four train derailments, These trains were transporting the heavily combustible Bakken crude. At this rate, it seems it’s only a matter of time until we witness another La Magnatec incident, which ended with over 40 people dead and the destruction of several city blocks and businesses.Where does this put us? How do we move from oil consumption to something better? Is it possible? Well, moving to renewable energies and moving away from our dependence on oil and gas is possible. In fact, many companies and countries are starting to make the dramatic move. Even countries like China, who is always condemned for their horrid pollution. We tend to ignore the fact that 48% of their pollution is created because of our consumption.Solar and wind energy are becoming cheaper and booming. The price of solar has dropped by47% since 2011, as the US has provided more subsidies. If we could force our government to take the subsidies that we give oil, gas, and coal and instead provide it to clean energy the prices could be even lower and provide an easier opportunity to transition to clean energy.If we want to further decrease the price of clean energy productions, we could force the government to use more of it. As Christian Parenti suggests in his book Tropics of Chaos, the government is the number one consumer of energy (oil), whether that be with government cars, buildings, and military. So, if they switch those cars over to electric or even hybrids, we would see a dramatic decrease in their prices, which would make it more affordable for average consumers to purchase.Another option is to democratize municipalities by making municipalities public operated and work for the people. By bringing energy grids or electric and power companies back into public hands, we will see tax revenue go back to the public and could use that money to invest into clean energy and further push for the development of wind and solar.

The last and most basic thing anyone can do, is support the political movements speaking on all these fronts. By supporting, sharing, and spreading the world about events like the XL pipeline protests, the Climate March, or even standing with workers who are protesting being laid off at the oil plants, we’re supporting the public. By standing with the people on the front lines, through social media, we’re hopefully making others take a second look at movement without enough public attention. And by aligning climate activists with workers in the oil industry, we’re setting up the continuation of a democratic movement when we do make the transition into clean energy away from the oil industry.It’s what we do next that will be remembered by future generations. The future of our world is relying on whether we can alter our path, otherwise there will be little left of to call home with our continued degradation of ripping up the world in hopes of maintaining our addiction to oil.